<p>A man who lodged a consumer complaint against an insurance company, claiming inadequate service, has been denied a compensation of Rs 12 lakh since he could not prove his case in the consumer court.</p>.<p>Manjunath VS, a Nandini Layout resident, had obtained an Asha Kiran insurance policy from The New India Assurance Co Ltd in 2017. The policy aimed to provide insurance coverage for Manjunath, his wife, and their daughter, and was valid till May 12, 2018.</p>.High Court should at look at attending circumstances, not just allegations when dealing with quashing of FIRs: SC.<p>Following his wife Gowramma KB’s death on April 2, 2018, Manjunath approached the insurance company with a claim for Rs 8 lakh as compensation. However, the insurance company refused to entertain his claim.</p>.<p>Aggrieved by the lack of compensation, Manjunath initiated a notice and approached a consumer court to plead his compensation claim. The court issued directions to the insurance company to process the claim, but the company did not comply with its orders.</p>.<p>Left with no alternative, Manjunath turned to the first additional district consumer disputes redressal commission in Shantinagar in September 2022. In his plea, he demanded his insurance claim to be honored along with an additional Rs 4 lakh, citing the alleged service deficiency by the company.</p>.<p>The insurance company countered Manjunath's argument by stating that he provided documents only to demonstrate that his wife had died due to a heat stroke while returning from a temple. These documents did not fulfill the policy's requirement for additional documentation.</p>.<p>On carefully examining the evidence presented by both parties, the bench dismissed Manjunath’s complaint against the insurance company on July 24. The decision was based on the observation that Manjunath's affidavit did not specify the cause of death, and lacked crucial documents like an FIR, hospital records, or a postmortem report. As a result, Manjunath could not validate his claim that his wife's death was due to an accident.</p>.<p>Quashing his claim for a compensation of Rs 12 lakh, the bench concluded that Manjunath had falsely claimed that his wife’s death was the result of an accident and failed to prove the company’s alleged deficiency of service.</p>
<p>A man who lodged a consumer complaint against an insurance company, claiming inadequate service, has been denied a compensation of Rs 12 lakh since he could not prove his case in the consumer court.</p>.<p>Manjunath VS, a Nandini Layout resident, had obtained an Asha Kiran insurance policy from The New India Assurance Co Ltd in 2017. The policy aimed to provide insurance coverage for Manjunath, his wife, and their daughter, and was valid till May 12, 2018.</p>.High Court should at look at attending circumstances, not just allegations when dealing with quashing of FIRs: SC.<p>Following his wife Gowramma KB’s death on April 2, 2018, Manjunath approached the insurance company with a claim for Rs 8 lakh as compensation. However, the insurance company refused to entertain his claim.</p>.<p>Aggrieved by the lack of compensation, Manjunath initiated a notice and approached a consumer court to plead his compensation claim. The court issued directions to the insurance company to process the claim, but the company did not comply with its orders.</p>.<p>Left with no alternative, Manjunath turned to the first additional district consumer disputes redressal commission in Shantinagar in September 2022. In his plea, he demanded his insurance claim to be honored along with an additional Rs 4 lakh, citing the alleged service deficiency by the company.</p>.<p>The insurance company countered Manjunath's argument by stating that he provided documents only to demonstrate that his wife had died due to a heat stroke while returning from a temple. These documents did not fulfill the policy's requirement for additional documentation.</p>.<p>On carefully examining the evidence presented by both parties, the bench dismissed Manjunath’s complaint against the insurance company on July 24. The decision was based on the observation that Manjunath's affidavit did not specify the cause of death, and lacked crucial documents like an FIR, hospital records, or a postmortem report. As a result, Manjunath could not validate his claim that his wife's death was due to an accident.</p>.<p>Quashing his claim for a compensation of Rs 12 lakh, the bench concluded that Manjunath had falsely claimed that his wife’s death was the result of an accident and failed to prove the company’s alleged deficiency of service.</p>